What did Clinton do? You mean aside from keeping his mouth shut about being offered an underage girl?
Can you clarify exactly which law Clinton broke?
Bro the guy was literally "the leader of the free world" and said nothing about his friend selling children to child diddlers and you are going to come at me with a "but akchually WHICH LAW DID HE BREAK?!?!?!?". Go piss.
I was responding to a person who said Trump belongs in the same category as Clinton. So you believe Trump's transgressions are no worse than keeping his mouth shut about illegal activity? It seems you are defending them by ridiculing me.
You didn't though. You replied to me saying this:
What did Clinton do? You mean aside from keeping his mouth shut about being offered an underage girl?
The law of “Jezus, every sane human knows to report that”
Perhaps there was already an investigation going.
more likely the prosecutors were on epstein island
Laws should follow and codify ethics, not dictate them. If a transgression (such as not reporting CSA to the relevant authorities) is not already banned by law, that doesn't mean it's fine. It means the law needs to be amended.
In this specific case I agree, not reporting CSA should be illegal (and probably is?) I'm not so sure that we should codify the current ethical understanding into law though.
We need to leave room for development. Forcing new ideas to first go through the battle of legalization isn't helpful in this regard. Laws are there to regulate what normal social regulation can't do properly.
I think people who cheat on their partners are morally speaking bad people. But writing into law you can't have multiple partners at once is quite obviously a bad decision, because there are happy polyamourus relationships. The government doesn't need to get involved here, being treated like the ass that you are for cheating is punishment enough, and leaves the room for developing new ways of living together.
I guess we need to distinguish between legislation, regulation and case law established through judicial precedent. Legislation is definitely too cumbersome to react to shifting moral standards. Regulation and judicial precedent are more flexible in cases where legal consequences are warranted.
As so often, there is nuance to the topic. General statements are hard to make both concisely and precisely. I opted for brevity, but you are absolutely right.
Either way, we agree that complacency about CSA is fucked up.
Sounds like a precursor to a lot of dystopian novels/movies. Equilibrium?
Motherfucker, diddling children could be legal tomorrow and i would still not fuck a child. The law doesn't decide what's right or wrong.
I agree, but is there any evidence Clinton did it?
What did Clinton do? You mean aside from keeping his mouth shut about being offered an underage girl?
Can you clarify exactly which law Clinton broke?
Bro the guy was literally "the leader of the free world" and said nothing about his friend selling children to child diddlers and you are going to come at me with a "but akchually WHICH LAW DID HE BREAK?!?!?!?". Go piss.
I was responding to a person who said Trump belongs in the same category as Clinton. So you believe Trump's transgressions are no worse than keeping his mouth shut about illegal activity? It seems you are defending them by ridiculing me.
You didn't though. You replied to me saying this:
The law of “Jezus, every sane human knows to report that”
Perhaps there was already an investigation going.
more likely the prosecutors were on epstein island
Laws should follow and codify ethics, not dictate them. If a transgression (such as not reporting CSA to the relevant authorities) is not already banned by law, that doesn't mean it's fine. It means the law needs to be amended.
In this specific case I agree, not reporting CSA should be illegal (and probably is?) I'm not so sure that we should codify the current ethical understanding into law though.
We need to leave room for development. Forcing new ideas to first go through the battle of legalization isn't helpful in this regard. Laws are there to regulate what normal social regulation can't do properly.
I think people who cheat on their partners are morally speaking bad people. But writing into law you can't have multiple partners at once is quite obviously a bad decision, because there are happy polyamourus relationships. The government doesn't need to get involved here, being treated like the ass that you are for cheating is punishment enough, and leaves the room for developing new ways of living together.
I guess we need to distinguish between legislation, regulation and case law established through judicial precedent. Legislation is definitely too cumbersome to react to shifting moral standards. Regulation and judicial precedent are more flexible in cases where legal consequences are warranted.
As so often, there is nuance to the topic. General statements are hard to make both concisely and precisely. I opted for brevity, but you are absolutely right.
Either way, we agree that complacency about CSA is fucked up.
Sounds like a precursor to a lot of dystopian novels/movies. Equilibrium?
Motherfucker, diddling children could be legal tomorrow and i would still not fuck a child. The law doesn't decide what's right or wrong.
I agree, but is there any evidence Clinton did it?